This Trailer is Overkill?

[two_bit_score]

Of course it actually doesn't prove anything. Landscapers buy the kind of trailer they need for their job and/or what they can afford. But we don't know what the city needed that kind of trailer for, whether they needed it at all, or what else it might be used for.

And they are spending their own hard worked for money. The city is spending "tax money" which to some administrators is play money.

I've worked with governments at too many different levels not to know how the people who are spending tax money think about it. Too few of them are concerned about being frugal with it. Too many look for every excuse to get the highest upgraded item they can. They are experts at "justifying their decisions".

While there may be a "justifiable" dual purpose in having this type trailer the question behind the question is if the other item is really needed of if it was something bought to expend budget surplus at the end of a fiscal year.

In most cases waiting on more facts before jumping o a conclusion is a good idea but when it comes to government spending one can be assured of being correct about 99.9% of the time in assuming their was some self interest or fiduciary error in any government purchase that appears on it's surface to be excessive.

 

[Scooby074]

I always get a laugh at these threads talking about government waste. sure, government is wasteful.. dont get me started...

But look at it from the other side. IF this trailer prevents accidents. IF you can show your workers comp that your taking an interest in improving safety, the added cost is insignificant. Look at the big picture and the future savings.

How much do you think it costs when a guy goes out on comp? Why do companies spend thousands on ergonomic workstations that raise to prevent back strain? At the end of the day it pays. This is private industry... If it didnt pay, they wouldnt do it.

Plus it could be being used by the electricians the other 4 days a week that need it for a manlift. We dont know that.

 

[Don87]

This picture was NOT a government vehicle.:laughing:

And that pic was of the last stop on the trip, there were more than likely 2 more tractors on that triler before it left the dealership.

That trailer is justifiable.

 

[Don87]

I always get a laugh at these threads talking about government waste. sure, government is wasteful.. dont get me started...

But look at it from the other side. IF this trailer prevents accidents. IF you can show your workers comp that your taking an interest in improving safety, the added cost is insignificant. Look at the big picture and the future savings.

How much do you think it costs when a guy goes out on comp? Why do companies spend thousands on ergonomic workstations that raise to prevent back strain? At the end of the day it pays. This is private industry... If it didnt pay, they wouldnt do it.

Plus it could be being used by the electricians the other 4 days a week that need it for a manlift. We dont know that.

And this goes back to the point I made in my previous post.

If you are permitted to hire qualified workers, comp claims very rarely occur.

 

[Scooby074]

And this goes back to the point I made in my previous post.

If you are permitted to hire qualified workers, comp claims very rarely occur.

I agree, but it DOES happen. Everyday. Why not reduce the risk? In this case the difference would be approx. $5000 max (depending on where you get your prices) between this trailer and a traditional one.

Locally, the school board (yeah before anyone says more gov't waste) instituted a policy that no riding lawnmowers were to be used on slopes greater than 15*. These are experienced operators (no turnover.. guys have been there for years) yet they still made the policy....TO REDUCE RISK.

The reason to reduce risk? To save money on claims.

And, yes, there is no way to reduce ALL risk in life... but minimizing risk pays off.

 

[not2old]

My first thought was it must be new Workers Compensation Board regulations. With them, cost is not a factor. Then I considered that it would be hard for one of the workers to tell the foreman that it fell off the trailer. Don't forget that it's likely self-insured by the city.

 

[brokenot]

The proof is in the lack of landscapers who use them.

That proves nothing really. Around here, many landscapers' trailers don't have functioning lights and many aren't registered. The trailer is a "secondary' concern, and isn't nearly as important to them because it isn't the money-maker. The $$ they spend goes nto the equipment itself...not what it rides on.

While I'm not defending a municipality's decision for this trailer expense, I can tell you that I've been involved in the rental biz for about 25 years in a repair/maintenance capacity. At least as much damage is done to our equipment during loading/unloading as is done during the actual "working time" on the equipment. Lower-clearance equipment is especially susceptible. Wheels/rollers/jacks/brackets/etc. are damaged all the time by going up/down ramps. What happens when traction isn't optimal? The operator takes a run at it. What happens if they aren't totally in control during a ramp descent? Banging and bouncing when the equipment hits the ground.

If this trailer isn't used for anything other than mowing equipment, well then....maybe they're just tired of repairing or replacing wheels/rollers/decks that are constantly getting damaged when the mowers are being moved from one place to another.

 

[Grateful11]

Folks are making a lot of "assumptions" here that may . . . or may not . . . be close to right.:laughing: I know government organizations waste a lot of money, but then a lot of other companies do, too. I think it would be interesting if the OP asked the proper city department why they have that particular kind of trailer. Sure, they could use a cheaper trailer for the ZTR, but if they have to have that kind of trailer for some other piece of equipment, why not a dual use instead of also buying a cheaper trailer for the ZTR?

I agree!

 

[Iowachild]

Folks are making a lot of "assumptions" here that may . . . or may not . . . be close to right.:laughing: I know government organizations waste a lot of money, but then a lot of other companies do, too. I think it would be interesting if the OP asked the proper city department why they have that particular kind of trailer. Sure, they could use a cheaper trailer for the ZTR, but if they have to have that kind of trailer for some other piece of equipment, why not a dual use instead of also buying a cheaper trailer for the ZTR?

I agree government wastes other people's money, private companies waste their own money and that is their prerogative!:2cents:

 

[ray66v]

I am sure that landscapers get injured loading and unloading their equipment, they also get injured using their equipment, which is all stuff that can cause injury if not used properly. You can't make working with dangerous equipment totally safe.

Careless, stupid, and ignorant people always find a way to somehow cause an accident.

If the only way you can keep these workers from getting injured, is to buy them this type of trailer, you shouldn't be surprised when they just do some other stupid thing, because without the proper training and supervision, I guarantee they will.